Sunday, August 21, 2011
Freezing in the Dark
Here is what the boy reporter/pundit Ezra Klein says about the coming EPA regulations which will shut down a fifth of the currently operating coal fired plants here in America over the next 6 years. That means about 1/3 of the coal power now supplied will be lost. Because coal fired plants are 45% of our electricity production, reducing 45% by a third is a pretty big hit on the nation's power production. Klein thinks it's a good thing, and that we'll be able to quickly and easily make up their loss with cleaner gas fired plants. And it will only cost us all an additional $2.8 Billion/yr. Almost nothing.
When there were blackouts in California because of the lack of power plants a decade ago, the political powers that be blamed the evil speculators including Enron of conspiring to cause the rolling brownouts and blackouts. In the next few years, if we start to have blackouts in certain states where the EPA regulations shut down power plants, who will the left blame?
Here is the lefty ideal of power production.
I meant the top half of Korea.
When there were blackouts in California because of the lack of power plants a decade ago, the political powers that be blamed the evil speculators including Enron of conspiring to cause the rolling brownouts and blackouts. In the next few years, if we start to have blackouts in certain states where the EPA regulations shut down power plants, who will the left blame?
Here is the lefty ideal of power production.
I meant the top half of Korea.
Labels: Government Control of Power Production, No Energy Economy
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 8:02 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
You're really doing this? Comparing environmental regulations (as misguided as they may be) with a brutal authoritarian dictatorship? And you're still expecting to be taken seriously?
# posted by 
: 9:08 AM
: 9:08 AM
What is the real difference between complete authoritarian control of the power grid, economy, and the individual choices of the people and incomplete authoritarian control of the power grid (coal and gas are regulated and taxed--wind and solar are free of regulation and paid for in large part by the government) the economy (government interference in the form of stimuli and bailouts) and individual choice (which light bulb we can buy)? Is it a difference in kind or merely of degree? Of course the end point of absolute socialism is misery--poverty and freezing in the dark-- while our partial socialism merely causes a long non recovery to the periodic recessions endemic to capitalism. I have serious comparisons, your criticism seems a little nit picky to me. I promise you the end result of what the Warmie true believers and "green energy" enthusiasts want is very, very similar to what is currently the situation in N. Korea. Go see http://www.carboncounted.co.uk/IsCarbonNeutralPossible.html. Are these guys to be taken seriously?
It is about degrees, and it is important to distinguish. Just like agreeing that gay marriage is cool but marriage between a man and his sister (or a cow, or a rock, etc) isn't; that's a matter of degrees. To see a certain policy that you disagree with, and then to scream "totalitarianism", is the exact opposite. You're using a generalization of group of people (your oh-so-despised 'liberals') and using a blanket statement and extreme leap in (il)logic to make an unfair comparison to a brutal authoritarian regime.
Trying to control a bank's ability to rip off its investors and wanting to invest in the education and well-being of its citizens for the good of society as a whole does not make the US government N. Korea. And to say that a policy (which admittedly is stupid) that you disagree with is the next step to N. Korea doesn't do your argument any good. It makes you seem like an illogical reactionary.
Trying to control a bank's ability to rip off its investors and wanting to invest in the education and well-being of its citizens for the good of society as a whole does not make the US government N. Korea. And to say that a policy (which admittedly is stupid) that you disagree with is the next step to N. Korea doesn't do your argument any good. It makes you seem like an illogical reactionary.
# posted by : 8:56 AM
: 8:56 AM
Regarding gay marriage--once you abandon the traditional (150,000 year plus) definition and substitute "so you can live with whomever you love" as the rationale, then when someone wants to marry a daughter, dog, dolphin, or Eiffel Tower, you have no cogent argument to say no, that's not right. The difference between the oh so hated lefties here and in N. Korea is one of degree not kind and the sooner you cop to that truth, the sooner I'll be happy to engage you in political discussions. If you mean by 'reactionary' that I am virulently anti-communist, I accept the name-calling proudly. If you mean it some other way, it's just a long word for someone you disagree with.
No, I think frivolously throwing out Communist comparisons, like a modern day McCarthy, is "just a long word for someone you disagree with".
# posted by : 2:00 PM
: 2:00 PM
Commies are on the left. Historical fact. Not a charge like McCarthyism about which you know very little. Is it a perfect comparison? Obviously not. Is it a telling one? Obviously so.
Post a Comment
<< Home
